G.R. No. A.C. No. 12476. June 10, 2019.
EDGARDO M. MORALES, Complainant, vs. ATTY. RAMIRO B. BORRES, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Edgardo M. Morales engaged respondent Atty. Ramiro B. Borres, Jr. to assist in filing complaints for trespass and malicious mischief, paying him an acceptance fee of P25,000. Respondent filed three complaints for malicious mischief before the Office of the City Prosecutor-Tabaco City (OCP-Tabaco City). In the Investigation Data Forms, complainant indicated his brother-in-law’s Tabaco City address as his postal address, not his actual Quezon City residence. Respondent later informed complainant the cases were dismissed. Complainant asked for copies of the dismissal resolutions, which respondent did not provide. They went together to the OCP-Tabaco City, where they learned notices sent to the Tabaco City address were returned unserved. The OCP-Tabaco City directed complainant to submit additional information, including the ages of the parties and copies of police/barangay blotters. For a motion for reconsideration, complainant gave respondent a copy of his property title, but respondent did not attach it to the filed motion. The motion was denied for alleged failure to sufficiently prove ownership. In his defense, respondent countered that he followed up on the cases when in Tabaco City but the assigned personnel were often absent. He claimed he did not know complainant used a different address, did not suppress information, and promptly informed complainant of the dismissal. He asserted the motion for reconsideration contained the required ages, that the blotters were destroyed by calamities in Albay, and that attaching the title was unnecessary as ownership was acknowledged in a prior “Kasunduan” (agreement) before the barangay. He advised complainant to file a petition for review with the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, which complainant did not heed.

ISSUE

Did respondent violate Canons 17 (fidelity to client’s cause) and 18 (competence and diligence) of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING

No. The Court affirmed the IBP Board of Governors’ resolutions dismissing the complaint. The Court found complainant failed to substantiate his charges with substantial evidence. Respondent was not shown to be the counsel of record, explaining why he did not receive court notices. Complainant admitted using an incorrect address leading to unserved notices. Respondent followed up on the cases, and his decisions regarding the title and blotters were reasoned (reliance on the existing “Kasunduan” and destruction due to calamities). Complainant did not refute these assertions nor heed respondent’s advice to file a petition for review. A disbarment complaint is not a remedy for a lost case absent proof of lawyer neglect. The burden of proof lies with the complainant, which was not discharged, thus preserving respondent’s presumption of innocence and regular performance of duty. The complaint was dismissed.